Contents

No problem. I noticed the discrepancies in the name in general, and decided to track down, and fix, all of the links and other text, and your page happened to have the last of 'em. At least I apologized in the change text, Eh? :) -- Sulfur 23:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed a disrepancy between the tombstone and the articles, but I thought that maybe it said 'Tsingtao' in the credits, so I decided to let it be. Picard(o) 23:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the credits were simply "Ray" (no last name), and the last name was actually determined by the spelling on the tombstone. Seems reasonable to me. I guess. Heh. -- Sulfur 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. WTRiker here. Sorry for all the edits on Ship of the Line, but I was flipping through what I have currently read of it and was adding in the chapter info as I flipped through the pages, plus I was on and off of the page several times due to needs (food, call of nature,etc). So, once again, sorry for all the edits; I'll try not to do that anymore. --WTRiker 01:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Any idea how I can turn those notes into an article? I've seen Star Trek is..., but are there any other models for summaries of production bibles? Morwen 13:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

An article on the STTNG writer's bible you mean? you'd be breaking new ground, no matter how you did it. :)

Do you actually have the book? If so, starting with a scan of the cover (or something as such) would likely be a good place to go. I'd suggest maybe using the aforementioned "Star Trek is..." page as a starting "template". In theory, it could lead into a series of such "reference books", assuming that all of that information can be found. Some of the information from the various bibles and casting notes has found its way into articles, specifically the Jean-Luc Picard one. Either way, if you get started on it and want someone to look over it, just give a yell. -- Sulfur 14:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I do indeed (although have no access to a scanner). Okies. Morwen 19:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

How in the galexy do you do all those edits?! It's astounding. It's like you just see an episode, notice a phrase or image, and write an article. All I do is write stubs. How do you do it?!? -- User talk:42bens 42bens 02:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Practice, practice, practice. Some of it is wandering about just reading and noticing something out of place or something that needs adding. Well, most of it is that. The rest comes from deciding to clean something up or complete something and then just working through that. For example, my current project is trying to finish off the entire run of the Gold Key comic books, writers, artists, etc. Everything's now done except for the last 10 issues. Yay! Tomorrow I'll do those methinks. :) -- Sulfur 02:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your introduction and I plan to continue writing from the wanted articles list and evn clean up an article here or there. Thanks. ^_- 42bens 02:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as you were editing Martin Pasko so was I! I guess I was too slow... 42bens 03:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You are too fast! Not that it is a bad thing Memory Alpha is always in need of improvement. 42bens 04:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Received message re "All Our Yesterdays" changes, thanks. Is it going to mess things up to add a "Production Timeline" section for TOS episodes that do not as yet have them?? Please advise, I am really enjoying the work but don't want to screw things up. thanks!! euphorik6 04:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. In fact, it's encouraged, as long as you match 'em with the other ones. Use the '===' subsectioning for it so that it falls as a subsection of the Background Information section, and it should be all good. :) -- Sulfur 18:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave you to do any of that stuff yourself! :) I must sleep now, as I've a splitting headache with watching so many ENT episodes today! (13!) And it's 4am here in Scotland. Good night, it's been fun! :) --Defiant 03:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't stayed current on proper writing style here, but wouldn't something like a nut or type of fudge always be a nut or fudge? Instead of formerly being a nut or type fudge? I only ask out of curiosity. :) Lt. Washburn 10:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No, remember that we're looking back at things as if we're writing this from the distant future when everything is complete and sorted out. As such, nuts and fudge may not exist anymore. The worst part is when the first half of the sentence is in the 'present tense', and the second half in the 'past tense'. I generally just shove everything into past tense, since it's easier to write and read really. :) -- Sulfur 14:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think...this sounds fishy. I certainly understand how you would use past tense for a lot of things, but rather than your example of changing tenses mid sentence, referring to things like this in the past tense doesn't seem correct to me. Has this been discussed more widely using an example like this? This IS an item. This IS how it IS used generally. This IS how it WAS used specifically. I want to point out that I think my version is more widely accepted. -- Lt. Washburn 15:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it has been discussed ad nauseum. I'd go hunting for pages, but am at work right now, so I'll have to hunt them down a bit later. But the decision was made (somewhere along the way) that we're writing this as if we're looking back on things and they're all done and over with. -- Sulfur 15:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that that articles be written from a future perspective. Just that some things discussed in them, divorced from some specific era or event, can be referred to in the present tense. Any specific mention of that thing would subsequently be worded in the past tense. Example: A Member's Only jacket was popular in the 80's, but a jacket is a type of clothing. Now, if jackets themselves ever go out of style, it might make sense to change the tense. I think to write it from a future so distant that jackets are some item out of history doesn't make a lot of sense. It will sound bizarre. I found a page you created that does exactly that. I hesitate to link to it so you don't edit it. :) Just kidding. Antitachyon Where I might go to have this arbitrated? -- Lt. Washburn 16:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the idea of that was that base things (ie, star systems, elements, etc) that will last "until the end of time" are written as present tense, and transient things (jackets, fudge, people, species, etc) are written in past tense. I'll look for the reference on that stuff this afternoon for you.

Now, I also do realize that some planetary systems (etc) are written in the past tense, some of them mine, some by others. Personally, I'm of the opinion that everything should be in the same tense. And since we're describing a large number of events in past tense, it should all be in past tense. But that's only my take on things.

Pre-P.S. When writing on talk pages, please make sure that you keep your indents at the same level in each discussion as per Help:Talk pages as it makes it easier for readers to actually follow the conversation. -- Sulfur 16:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sulfur. Have you ever thought about requesting a bot account? You're doing much (and good) maintenance work, but doing it with a bot could reduce the time you spend on it and and would avoid filling up Recent Changes with all those edits at the same time. -- Cid Highwind 20:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think was discussed on IRC that no one could figure out how to do spelling/grammar checks-- hence the above list. --Alan del Beccio 20:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Something like that. I could get a bot account, and then use that one for such changes as these, so that it doesn't fill up the RC. The issue is that most of the changes I tend to make are grammatical ones, and those are really tough to automate. At best. :) -- Sulfur 20:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, difficult to completely automate, but definitely still easier to handle semi-automatically by a bot. A simple call to replace.py with parameters "it's" (from) and "its"/"it is" (to, first run/second run) would avoid much clutter on RC and be easier to handle than visiting/editing all those pages in a browser. You'd still have to decide between [Y]es and [N]o for each possible occurence, but that would be it... -- Cid Highwind 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You left a split second before I submitted my own congratulations on IRC. For that, I'm asking that your admin privileges be revoked IMMEDIATELY! :P Seriously, though, congratulations. :) --From Andoria with Love 04:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It was well timed. All in the plan. :) And thanks all. -- Sulfur 21:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Great job on the Minerals article that you put together.
Please do note (it's been fixed by an anon already), that images in articles should use the 'thumb' attribute as opposed to a pixel size (ie 200px).
The 'thumb' attribute allows the viewer's settings to decide how big the picture should be. The only time when this should be avoided is on list pages (such as those lists of unnamed characters), where the image should be set to '150px'. Again, great work on
the article! -- Sulfur 03:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, about the formatting I removed from the quotes in episode "Death Wish". Normaly one use italics on the words that is to be emphasized but in this case sience the quote was already in italics the effect was the opposite and therefore I concluded that it wasn't properly formatted. Please correct me on this subject if I'm wrong science I'm new here.

Yah, italics are used to highlight things. And since quotes are already italicized... non-italics become the highlights. That's all. :) -- Sulfur 21:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Sulfur, I saw your comment when you moved the Compact disc article that you didn't know where it came from. Please check out the page's talk page where I made a note, I too don't believe it is the most valid article. - Enzo Aquarius 23:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi !
I´m new for a few days on this page. I saw your comments and changes.I`ll try to watch them when I write something new or add something and I`ve learned a lot in the last days. Please don`t get angry.
Perhaps you can help me. My Gallery for Scott Leva disappears and I don`t know why.
Thanks a lot.
– Tom 00:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the gallery. And reinstated the format fixes I'd used. As an aside, please use ' for apostrophes, not the backtick (`). -- Sulfur 01:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me what was exactly wrong on uploading the last image. I made a new description. Thanks. – Tom 16:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

When uploading imgs, just add a description, a citation, the license (which you did add), and a category. If you're uncertain on the category, Category:Memory Alpha images is generally a good one as a starter. Otherwise, just make them look similar to the image you just uploaded and edited. -- Sulfur 17:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok , I think I understand.I`ll try it again with another pic. Thanks.– Tom 17:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You're too fast for me. I worked on my own mistakes and try to correct them but you're faster ;o]
– Tom 15:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont mean to be rude, but I put that caption in to remain there. If I did somthing wrong, please let me know, but at the least, warn me not to do it again. Thanks. Janewayfan4497 02:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see your talk page which I was made a note on after reverting your edits. -- Sulfur 02:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I will refrain from editing templates. Sorry for the trouble. Janewayfan4497 02:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I don't know about you, but the Special:Editcount page shows up as white text on a white background for me. You can see the text there if you highlight it. Let me know if you see the same thing. Thanks! -- Renegade54 20:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yah, we all see it that way. Alas. Sannse knows about the bug, and I think that it's been reported up the chain. There's also another bug in it that Bp found with respect to the percentages not adding up properly. :) -- Sulfur 20:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You want to use the {{delete file}} template, and report the duplicate pictures on the Memory Alpha:Files for deletion page then. Oh, and it's best to report not only the duplicate, but what it is a duplicate of. -- Sulfur 14:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

After attempting to defend my position on where I believe the Eugenics War should be placed on the timeline, I realize that I was losing a grip on reality. I didn't like how I felt, and I needed to restore some balance. I am writing to request that my account be closed.--Airtram3 22:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Just take a few days off and then come back. Everything will be fine. Anyway, there is no "close"; one simply puts an "I'm gone" notice on their user page and/or stops editing. Don't take this stuff so personally. You will want to come back, I'm sure. :) Also, you should hang out in the chat while you edit, it gives you a better sense of what is going on and lets you argue without being on the record, so you can test out your stuff and see what the opposition might be. Also, you can chat and play trivia and whatnot. --Bp 23:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that you've been following my edits and reverting my changes to the "memorable quotes" and "background information" sections -- reason given "for consistency"

I've tried to create all the novel and comic pages i've worked on with the simpler style for a number of reasons, i'd actually recommend the shorter names for all such pages.

Sorry i only get to talk to you about the little stuff :) -- Captain M.K.B. 18:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, not so much following your edits to be honest. I'd started to work on the Gold Key stuff a few weeks ago (which is what led to all of the issues being "done" -- I still have to finish writing about 45 issue summaries... *sigh*). However, as it stands, all of our episode summaries (~700 articles) have "Memorable Quotes" and "Background Information", as do a large number of the other comic books, novels, and so forth. I'm a big fan of consistency, and really, anything that's an "episode" summary (whether TV, film, novel, or comic) should look more or less the same, as it really does make things easier to read for the average viewer. But that's just my take on things. As per usual. -- Sulfur 18:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

true, consistency is desireable -- but i also suggest simplicity. i find the descriptors to be unnecessary -- its really unencyclopedic for us to dictate what was and wasn't "memorable" -- and, well, if it wasn't "information", would we really add it?

BTW, i am loving the Gold Key right now. I'm very excited to have found recurring characters after being told that there were none. Even if Dr. Krisp and Mr. Manning have different hairstyles in each appearance! -- Captain M.K.B. 18:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Memorable, yes questionable.. but when I've been doing the summaries (as you may have noticed from the first 10+ issues for example), I've been going for the most outrageous and "memorable" quotes. To me. So, yes, "memorable" is a dubious word there, and methinks that you should bring that up in a forum discussion to question others about it.

"Background Information" though? It is information, and it has to do with the background (whether what led to the writing of the comic, where else it was published, who wrote it, what colour Uhura is in this issue, etc), so I think that makes the most sense overall.

In terms of the character work, I'm happy that someone's spending time on those, as I'm not big on paying attention to all of the characters as I'm putting together the summary and quote sections of these (44 left, and 5 Peter Pan Records left!) as I work through them. Characters though? Not really my big thing. If you know what I mean. :) -- Sulfur 18:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

You're a machine! i've just noticed how many of the articles wouldn't have any content if it weren't for you!

I just wish i found the characters more interesting -- right now i'm just trying to sort out their Starfleet people, because some of the rest -- its like a universe filled with buffoons in the Gold Key milieu. -- Captain M.K.B. 18:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, someone's gotta create those articles when people like you slacker. ;) Plans are to finish the 5 peter pan stories, and then get back to trying to bomb through some more of the gold key issues. Someday I hope. Maybe. -- Sulfur 18:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I spent some time googling a number of the key words in from the information the last time he posted it, and got absolutely no hits on anything, so I'm not sure where the heck he's getting it from (not that it really matters!) -- Renegade54 05:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

When you get a chance, read through Klingon. It seems to me that there's an awful lot of speculation scattered throughout the article ("it has been speculated" or "it has been suggested" - by whom? citations?). This is a featured article (or was, anyway), but I suspect it has been edited many times since its featured status was conferred, resulting in what I feel is a less-than-feature-quality article at this point. Thoughts? -- Renegade54 22:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries on that. Some of those things are not canon, but they are "official" releases (for the most part). Oh, and TAS is apparently considered "canon" by the studio now too. Just as an aside. -- Sulfur 03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Was that not only through the one sector of space though? -- Sulfur 22:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No, in fact in that one sector warp travel was given up all together. In addition, permission had to be gotten from Starfleet Command to violate that limit in other episodes that took place in other sectors, such as "The Pegasus". --OuroborosCobratalk 22:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The decree in "Force of Nature" was: "Until we can counteract the warp-field effect, our best course is to slow the damage. Areas susceptible to warp fields are restricted to essential travel. All Federation vessels as of now are limited to a speed of warp five. Except in case of extreme emergency." Later in "The Pegasus", Picard was told: "You may exceed warp-speed limitations for the duration of this assignment", and later yet in "Eye of the Beholder", "we have permission to exceed warp-speed limitations to get on schedule." --Alan del Beccio 22:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Didn't think they were absolutely necessary when the attention required was self-evident. Live and learn. - Intricatedtalk page 06:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I know someone famous and important said something like "what's self-evident to me is the norm to you". Point being... not everyone sees the same thing, and could assume that the PNA is for something else entirely. It's mostly a CYA thing if you know what I mean. :) -- Sulfur 11:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replacing the text with the notice I put up. When I added the {{copyvio}}, I knew something didn't look right, and I couldn't put my finger on it. Didn't have much time to spend on it either, I was shutting down and heading to my car. --OuroborosCobratalk 19:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You wrote "not sure why this is a redirect, because _this_ was actually referenced..."
While the actual reference was to "Riemannian tensor field" it seems silly to have an article on such an esoteric topic, since nobody is likely to care what a Riemannian tensor field is, beyond that it is a type of object which occurs in the mathematical field of Riemannian geometry. On the other hand, it was a red link, so I figured a redirect to a page on the general subject where this object occurs would be good, and that page could have a two line explanation of what the subject is, and how it is of interest relating to Star Trek. If they want to learn more, Memory Alpha is not the place. Althai 03:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. thanks for cleaning up my edits to fit the templates and guidelines.

One more on this page. ;) And for having completed the MA:POV page. And yes, I did put a link on the talk page to the tense debate: it was ankward from my part, I admit. But I didn't know how to explain the thing, and was on leaving my office, so I got lazy. Fortunately, you are the POV specialist and now the concept is clearer, I think. BTW, I gave some cents about creating a new POV template there. Good? Bad? Ugly? Inputs? --STAR TREK Man(Space... the final frontier) 21:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yah, i figured that it was something like that. That's why I tried to summarize the entire discussion, address every point raised, and then casually point out that there was no discussion to have. Btw, you should hang out on irc more often. Then we could laugh at the foolishness. :) -- Sulfur 22:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's hard for me to do IRC at work... they block a lot of stuff. :( -- Renegade54 02:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that note on conditional tense to the POV article. I've been purging articles of that crap from day one; it drives me nuts. Why the heck do people use it, anyway... it's so much easier and less wordy to write "in 22xx, so-and-so ate dinner" rather than "in 22xx, so-and-so would eat dinner" or whatever. I don't get it. -- Renegade54 20:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fyi, commas go outside of the quotes when the quotes surround an episode title, short story title, and so forth. This is an intentional style choice made here at MA, even though it (in theory) contravenes standard stylistic rules. -- Sulfur 22:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, the new mini-series is called Klingons: Blood Will Tell, but the first issue is actually titled (according to the IDW webpage) "Against Their Nature", even though the title was nowhere to be seen in the book. -- Sulfur 18:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I looked through my first issue before changing the title. Thought about changing the title in the "Errand of Mercy" entry, but decided that perhaps others knew something I didn't. What do you think we should do? Even if they meant for it to be called "Against Their Nature", the actual books only say "Blood Will Tell" (plus "#1", etc.) Sir Rhosis 18:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The books only state that, but IDW has stated (and I've added a web link to the actual issue article) that all five of these books will have specific titles, but whether or not the titles show up in print is another thing entirely. It does seem to be a new practice to title a book, but not actually have it listed within. It's a bother. Perhaps having a redirect of "Blood Will Tell, Part 1" or something. I guess that we'll see what the second issue looks like.

Both of the first two issues have had advertising mentioning their titles, but as noted, the first issue didn't have it printed within, for whatever reason. Comics people are weird. :) -- Sulfur 18:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also posting this to EnzoAquarius. I found, on askmen.com, a sunning picture of Jeri Ryan. Now the copyright on the image is as follows:

'Please Note: All material on this page is original content, and intellectual property of AskMen.com. Any unauthorized or uncredited use of this material will result in possible prosecution.'

I stress the two words in bold. Now I uploaded this image, giving FULL credit to the site on the image description page. However, OuroborosCobra, citied that it may constitute a possible copyright violation. It it? I mean, according to the wording of the copyright, I had to either get tuhorization to use the image OR give them credit for it. I gave them full credit. So is this a copyright violation?

Thank you for your contribution with the "VOY: The Cloud" episode.
I am new to this (today is the first time I have ever did this)
so any and all help with formating is greatly appreciated.
If you have any suggestions to make my contributions better, please let me know.
Don't be afraid to edit anything I have done. It's welcome. After all, this isn't my website.
I'm just trying to make it better, as are you. your recent changes look really good allthough, I am not a big fan of the dead space at the top of the summary. I'd rather have it at the bottom but that's just my opinion.

Thanks again for the guidance!
Editor3000

P.S.
I have the nickname "Editor3000" because I am a trained Video Editor.

Some of the good things to do when writing up summaries, articles, etc is to read the manual of style (which can be found in the links on your talk page in the welcome message at the top. One big thing is to only link the first entry of something.

In terms of the blank space thing, there should never be large chunks of blank space anywhere. The bit at the top is only around the TOC in my web browser. But one thing that you needn't do is to add a bunch of blank lines into articles. :) -- Sulfur 01:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Verry well, I guess I am being TOO thourgh. I will remeber thease tips. So, I guess, you are one of the main editors and you get notification of all page changes. That's cool. I look forward to contributing more. I think I'll start by removing a bunch of those duplicate links.Thanks for the info!

Hey!
What do you think about adding additional pictures to episodes like "Eye of the Needle"? I can get what's needed from the Voyager series. If you have suggestions let me know and give me a little time to find them and I will give them to you. What do you think?

Hey. I don't understand. The page you two created is for birthdays and dates of death, right? Only for the persons we don't have a full date? Or should I add all persons? Perhaps I'm right when I think you'll collect them on this page and make one edit for a handful of people? – Tom 20:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The last. Right now, I was just keeping people on there as I saw them created, updated, edited, whatever, and not added to all of the relevant pages. I spent a couple of hours yesterday going through the ~200 people and adding them to all of the pages in "1" shot.

My eventual goal would be to collect those people on there with birthdays where we don't actually have all of the data on them, so that there would be one simple place to look to see what we were missing. If that makes any sense at all. :) -- Sulfur 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a good idea. I'll add people to this site when i create a new one and don't have the full birth date...for an example, Simone Boisseree is one. Ok? – Tom 20:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That was pretty quick!! Next time, please could you wait until the user uploading an image makes another edit and have the patience to see if they're going to do it themselves? I think you'll probably save yourself time and be less likely to offend someone (I was about to save my description of the image, when I saw that you'd already done it - frustrating to say the least!!) Hope you have enough sense to see that this is not meant as a personal attack or anything, just a suggestion. :) --Defiant 23:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Do it on the upload screen. It's easier. That's what that box at the bottom provides. -- Sulfur 23:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Curious if you know how to move around Table of Contents. I am trying to get the TOC on User:FleetCaptain/PersonnelFile to move below the line that says "Personnel File of Fleet Captain", justifed to the right side of the page. Feel free to edit that page if you know how to do it. Thank you for your time! -FleetCaptain 06:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You can use the __TOC__ flag, and that should set the table of contents on the page at that point. However, I don't know if you can choose to justify it anywhere other than... well... the left side of the page. -- Sulfur 12:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC

I get a red-link template when I type TOC between __. How are you supposed to type it? Thanks. -FleetCaptain 16:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a template. It's used exactly as I put it above:

__TOC__

Just at the start of the line, obviously. :) -- Sulfur 16:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell is the server insisting that the old image is the higher resolution? The image is here: File:G_Wang.jpg. See for yourself. – Orr6000 23:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it shrinks it down to fit on the screen. Stop uploading new versions. They're the same size! The server shrinks the file to show, and tells you that a higher resolution is available. -- Sulfur 05:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up Yeager for me. I'm new around here, so I'm not used to the exact format of things. I was actually looking for information on Dennis Yeager, who was a special effects technician for Enterprise. No luck. :) Ryangibsonstewart 14:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude, regarding deleting comments, i went through that guy's contributions. Every single one of them was some kind of personal comment and most of them] were removed. This probably lead me to the wrong impression that such apparently needless personal opinions ought to be removed. Furthermore, I considered my comment rather a response to the article stating all the Devidians were destroyed and not a reply to that guy's comment. Of course, I shouldn't have made this hasty conclusion. Thanks for your correction, though. Indeed, as I think of it, removing comments of any nature whatsoever may not be the best course of action. Thanks again and in order to redeem my mistake I will immediatly proceed to restore the rest of that guy's deleted comments.--194.126.179.33 18:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No need to put them all back. Just the ones that are actually related to the article in question, such as the one that I reverted previously. :) -- Sulfur 19:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm, basically, all are related to the article if you take it ad litteram. The one you reverted was just another personal opinion of "how un-starfleet"(sic) the measures against the devidians were. No different than the one in which he discusses the Emergence episode. You either remove them all or none.--194.126.179.33 19:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude, i'm not kidding. The comment you consider actually related to the article (it seems to me rather un-starfleet of the crew to commit genocide against an entire alien race for the "happy ending" of "times arrow pt. 2") follows exactly the same pattern as the others you deem needless. As I have said, my own comment was not intended as a reply but as a reaction the article information therefore there's no reason someone's personal considerations should be preserved. The guy points clear that's just his opinion. Shall I take it I am allowed and encouraged to express my own personal opinions regarding Star Trek aspects on this wiki? Unless you come with a very good reason for your apparent confusion, I will remove that comment too.--194.126.179.33 19:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about that. I apologise for my carelessness (embarrasingly, I'm being especially careless today: Special:Contributions/164.143.240.34 was simply me, having forgotten to log in; d'oh!). Still, I'll take that into account for next time. -- Jayunderscorezero 13:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It may be up on trekmovie.com, but if so, that means that either they have gotten written permission from StarTrek.com to use it, or that they're not following the rules either.

Anyhow, we've made it a past practice with these such images for the remastered episodes to not use them until the episode has aired, and until someone can actually get a proper screen capture. Legally speaking, it's just a bit safer for all involved really. -- Sulfur 11:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Perhaps you could clarify something for me though: can StarTrek.com exempt itself from "fair use" simply by boilerplate denying ALL permission to reproduce? I thought that "fair use" was a universal rule that could not be overrriden.Capt Christopher Donovan 21:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides any possible legal issues or non-issues, there's also the simple fact that those images are not actual screenshots (which we prefer). -- Cid Highwind 21:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you re-edited a change I made to B-4. Here's my reasoning. Although B-4 showed up in a later movie, after Lore and Data of the tv series, he was actually thought to be an earlier, more primitive, prototype, lost and later rediscovered. If true, this would make Lore and Data both younger, not older, brothers. - unsigned by 76.173.69.38

Hrm... well, the changes that I reverted were to remove the name "Soong" from them, especially since none of Data, Lore, or B-4 were ever referred to with that last name. Indeed, Data's full name according to Starfleet is... "Data". -- Sulfur 13:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the anon got you confused for me, Sulfur. This user made this edit here, which I reverted since B-4 was created before both Data and Lore, regardless of when he was discovered. --From Andoria with Love 16:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with Roxann Dawson's page is that a new user keeps replacing the current picture with others that do not have proper citations and thus may constitute possible copyright infringements. If there is one thing I have learned here is the importance of that, as you will recall.– Orr6000 19:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Read what you wrote.. "keeps replacing the current picture with others". That constitutes an edit war. 'Nuff said. -- Sulfur 19:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

please, i can't make the template you told me to use for starting a mergin discussion work. can you please make it for me?--Örlogskapten 22:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Simply add the template to the top of the page, such as {{merge with|Avery Brooks}}, and then let things happen. It's best to read the documentation on templates when you can't figure out how to use them right off. -- Sulfur 23:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you had to go and categorize a bunch of images I uploaded today. It's been a while since I editted to MA, and so I didn't know that one has to categorize images these days ;-) I'll remember to do that whenever I upload new pics. I'm sorry I caused this inconvenience for you. Ottens 17:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean I spent two days doing all that work for nothing?! OUCH!!!! *Snickers and sighs heavily* Well... thanks for telling me. Feel free to revert the Dark Frontier article to what it was before. I do not think you will want to merge the two together...that would be way too long. OUCH! DAMMIT, MAN! *laughs*– Orr6000 21:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I got tired of the generic name orr6000 when everybody else here has such interesting names. So I created a new account under Obsidian One and have begun using that. I also chose the nickname The Head of The Obsidian Order. 'The Obsidian Order'... I just like the sound of it. :) And to prevent some schmuck from using The Head of The Obsidian Order as their login name, I created an account on it with my password. There is only one head...me! :)– The Head of the Obsidian Order 18:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw your comment about formatting episode titles but I would just like to know specifically what to do. I didn't understand what was different about the correct way and what I had done. Thanks 31dot 23:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Episode titles get "" around them. In fact, the best way to refer to an episode is to use the episode link template, such as {{e|Emissary}}, which will produce "Emissary". When referring to a series, put the series abbreviation at the start, such as {{DS9|Emissary}}, which gives DS9: "Emissary". Fun, huh? -- Sulfur 00:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you please check out the image deletion page and weigh in on discussion number 8? I am really confused about the whole 'fair use' thing. The Cobra's assertion goes against what I understand the MA position on copyrighted material to be. – The Head of the Obsidian Order 02:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I saw that the summary of "Survival Instinct" begins with a short precis, so I decided to add that in to other summaries. But, as with "Nothing Human", I realized that there is no point to that for many episode summaries, as the little into on the top does that already. But you beat me to deleting if from Nothing Human...:)– The Head of the Obsidian Order 00:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That's nice and all... but what's the source for the information there? -- Sulfur 01:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a staff mailing list, some dozens of people are registered in there and they (or better we :P) work together to improve the site. We add infos only based upon direct viewing of the episodes or canon sources, and anyway the last word about whether putting on a certain info or not is of the owner of the site. Mailing list home page if you want to know more: http://mail.hypertrek.info/mailman/listinfo/staff

That's all good for first appearances of things, etc. However, that does not work for working titles of episodes, information from writers, etc. Those things need some sort of citation. A source. Another webpage doesn't do the trick, unless it is an interview transcription or something similar. HyperTrek isn't those. -- Sulfur 02:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't come here to make work for you or get into edit wars or verbal fisticuffs though that's what it seems like in the 12 days since my first contribution. I have a different take on Trek than most. I never drank the Kool-Aid. I try to see Trek for what it is, not just what people want it to be. While I do like a good argument, I want it to be rational. I see a lot of unreasonable speculation and a lot of speculation passing for canon here and believe challenging those are valid exercises in MA. (I think the "AD" issue is an example of speculation passing as canon that deserves to be addressed but that's not even the issue anymore.)

You reverted my changes almost before I finished them. (In the case of Equinox, it WAS before I finished.) If I didn't realize you were changing the centuries pages right behind me, I could have changed (and you reverted) a dozen more pages. You couldn't have waited a couple of days? or even a couple of hours? Perhaps with some discussion we could have reached a solution that wouldn't seem so unilateral or draconian. I would have undone or revised my contributions if necessary or perhaps you might see there's some validity to my changes. Maybe others could see the changes and have an opinion. This is supposed to be a collaborative effort. How can I contribute if you're going to decide beforehand what I'm allowed to do? Why should I contribute only to see my efforts unceremoniously discarded?

It was fun when I started but it isn't right now. I think I have a lot to offer MA, but not if I have to wonder if everything I do is going to be undone. So please give me space. Let me contribute even if that means I make a mistake or tread on someone's toes. If I want to challenge what's accepted as "canon", let me make my arguments. Let other contributers have their say on what I write. Let me try to change your mind. Let others try to change mine. – StarFire209 19:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

In the case of finishing changes and reverting them, when an edit is saved, it is assumed that the editor is finished making changes to the page unless he or she has marked it with an {{inuse}} tag (which should, of course, be removed when complete). There is a "show preview" button that should be used when working on an edit so that you don't have to edit and save the same page 10+ times (such as your recent endeavour, "Extinction"). In the case of the centuries and your additions and talk page comments, you need only add a talk page comment in one place. On the other talk pages, you can direct the conversation there, elsewise, the conversation begins to wander across a wide variety of talk pages and it eventually gets lost or misplaced, unless someone takes the time to amalgamate it all. Which is, unnecessary work.

As I mention on my user page, there was a reason I saved in chunks. I didn't know about the {{inuse}} tag. I see the point in making the same comment multiple times. Starfire

Yes, there is a lot of speculation here. It's something that we're trying to cut down on, and it's something that there's always going to be a lot of, unfortunately. In terms of the AD/CE stuff, one of them was mentioned on-screen, which is what we go by. Nothing else was mentioned, and at one point, we actually had (for every date on those pages) both shown, until someone pointed out that the "AD" was actually mentioned, and "CE" never was. Yes, there were still some articles out there that used a mixed bag of the two, but that's mostly because they were missed in the initial cleanup a year (or so) ago.

Was "AD" mentioned for every date? or only once? Did people actually say "17th century AD" or "21st century AD"? In what context was the term "mentioned"? Was the only use of "AD" was inside a holonovel, where characters also mention "gats" and "shooters"? I didn't see any citations for the global use of "AD". If you really want to reduce speculation in MA, say ing "it was mentioned, now it's canon" doesn't really help. Starfire

In terms of challenging canon, go right ahead. But take note as to what is considered canon, and come up with evidence to back up your challenges. Screen shots, quotes, and references are required to bring up a valid challenge.

In the case of "AD", I'm not actually challenging canon. I'm challenging speculation masquerading as canon. Shouldn't the person making the assertion be required to back it up?

Finally, you may (or may not) have come across the "strong suggestions" to avoid swearing on talk pages where possible. Your attempted workarounds with phrases like "Suppositional Highly Imaginative Theorization" just doesn't cut it. It's a pathetic attempt to avoid the way things work around here. Simply use other words that mean the same kind of thing. "Crap" is a good replacement. Not t'other way around.

Normally, I have much better ways of expressing my incredulity or irritation. But the inanity of the situation got the better of me. (Those are my "I" words for today :} } I'm sorry you didn't appreciate the joke. I thought it was amusing, a take-off on the "special high intensity training" joke that's been around for decades. Starfire

Have fun playing with the other kids in the sandbox. Remember that it's not all about you. There's a community here that's been around for a hell of a lot longer than you have been part of it. Be a part of it. Don't accuse (ie Cobra with the vandalism stuff), don't whine and complain (see the warning on every edit box "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here."), play nicely with the other contributors. Lots of other people have managed it. -- Sulfur 11:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I've already offered an apology to Cobra for impugning his honor. That warning may be valid, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't offer explanations when they revert something. It may not always work but it's worth the effort. Failing to explain may lead to an edit war or hard feelings or discouragement. Newcomers shouldn't be made to feel like they're crashing a party for the "entrenched." – 68.83.22.132 17:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC) (Starfire209 - session timed out)

I just wanted to say I support that a comment should be added for EVERY revertion. not much has to be said. like vandalisation or something like that.-- Örlogskapten... My channel... 18:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you had to step in there. I was actually planning to make the redirect a disambiguation myself, but since I thought it better to fix the links first, and that took some time, you beat me to it. Anyway thanks for the help, I saw you even beat me to fixing some links, you work way faster than I can :). greets, Capricorn 03:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just keen and geeky. :) As an aside, it's best to just point to that page as a disambig rather than listing all of the various pages on each of the pages. -- Sulfur 03:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed that, thanks for the hint. Capricorn 04:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the picture formatting tip. I was somehow under the mistaken impression that, since we were entirely using non-free images, the whole of MA was de facto under a license that didn't need to be made explicit. And I would never have noticed the picture categories had you not mentioned them! I think I've corrected everything I've uploaded to this point. CzechOut☎ | ✍ 03:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your continuing assistance. Please feel free to shoot me a line anytime you notice something I could be doing better. CzechOut☎ | ✍ 03:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There really should be some sort of process by which an image is approved for a particular day. As it is now, any user can simply overwrite another user's choice for a particular day, instead of just picking a free day, of which many are available. This is, in my opinion, very ill-mannered, and can lead to silly edit wars.
– Watching...listening... 21:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Why the revert? I have the comics in front of me, and my edits were the full titles, as they appeared on the title pages inside the books. -- Connor Cabal 01:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yah... the full revert was an accident actually. I meant to only do the True Crime ones, because it's best to make a "mini-series" article for them, and then just use the shorter title, since it's actually going to be easier to find and such not. That's been the practice on the rest of comics we've got out there. -- Sulfur 01:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I have raw cover scans (need edit/cropping) for a bunch of the missing DC v2 comics, but I'm hesitant to do much until there is a system in place. :'-( Just had to do a test because the cover of #54 is so cool. -- Connor Cabal 01:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yah, I have them all, set to the right size, just have to find the time to sit down and bash through them -- something that's been in short supply of late :( -- Sulfur 02:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting the redirect page. Do we also delete the redirect page Patrick Barritt ? I think a mention of his misspelled name on his page is o.k. and we don't need the redirect page. – Tom 22:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, we had confusion over the name, so it seems reasonable to me to keep the redirect, just in case people and think that is how his name is spelled. Talk page redirects get deleted at every chance though. -- Sulfur 01:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I was just using previous articles as a template, so there are probably many pages that need to be updated as I just cut-and-pasted the link format from them. I also see occasional pages that use "wiki:" as an abbreviation. I take it the template you mention is new? 68.146.41.232 22:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your tip about Kirk being different from James T. Kirk. I caught that slightly before your message came through, but not in time, alas, to avoid making more than a few mis-links. I have to wonder, though, about the whole paradigm for naming articles on MA. Wouldn't it make greater sense for the main characters who possess a certain surname to get precedence on having their article named with that surname? It would seem to me that, just to continue with Kirk for a moment, James T. Kirk would be — by a very wide margin — the most-frequently accessed person with that name, and that Kirk (surname) should thus be used for the disambig page. Judging by the number of times I've encountered a link to [[Kirk]] in text, it's a fairly common "mistake". This indicates to me that the naming convention itself is probably counter-intuitive. CzechOut☎ | ✍ 02:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The naming convention may be a bit counter-intuitive, but at the same time, your suggestion above is even more so... to my mind. Frankly, any time a link is to a single name like that, it smacks of laziness, and 90% of them come from anon contributors anyhow. But it may be something worth bringing up on the talk page for Kirk, just to see what other people think. -- Sulfur 09:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I hadn't thought of it as laziness, but I suppose it could be, from a certain point of view. If you believe that surnames should always link to a disambig page, and then note that there are several key examples which don't, then I guess those bad examples are "lazy". But the way I look at it, we're only tending towards a side of the argument.

The character of Dax is in her/his/its own category. Dax acts as a disambig page. Tigan acts as a disambig page. But the first names Jadzia and Ezri are redirected to Jadzia Dax and Ezri Dax. This would be all well and good, on the grounds that "Jadzia" and "Ezri" are unique identifiers, except that no Bajoran first names, which also tend to be unique, link to their articles. Moreover, some hosts of Dax are redirected from their first names, like Verad, but not others (Yedrin, Curzon)

I still think the most logical course of action is to link the surname to the character most associated with the name, but if we're going for surnames-as-disambig, it should probably be uniform. at least amongst the recurring characters. CzechOut☎ | ✍ 13:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Sulfur. I saw your note about the "Klingon laddy" (as Kirkisajerk put it) and added information on her to Neelix's page. I think what I wrote is in English, as requested. :) Just wanted to let you know. - Bridge 03:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to update the image with a clearer version. Look what happened. Bp tried as well. Same thing. What is wrong? – Watching...listening... 11:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Eyes Only, you need not leave this message on a bunch of different talk pages. Put it in one place. One. That would be the talk page for the image. That's it. One place. -- Sulfur 13:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yuh still eh seein' de image. It still registerin' as 0x0 pixels.
– Watching...listening... 15:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I also left a comment on a discussion thread regarding the canon policy. It might be something of interest to you regarding printed text as accepted by paramount. If I can find a cited quote from Paramount regarding this policy I will let you know, but perhaps someone else knows about it. – The preceding unsigned comment was added byCpt Kaziarl Nanaki (talk • contribs).

Basically it's due to harassment so I'm trying to remove my real name from circulation (search engines). I'd prefer not to go into detail if I don't need to as it's a complex matter. Mafeu 23:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I've no intention of leaving MA, so I'll be returning under a new username eventually. I was a bit naive to have ever used my real name online :(. Mafeu 23:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Both pages have been removed, but until the links to the user page are changed/whatever, the user page will have to exist so that it doesn't show up on the most wanted page. Which would be annoying as hell. :) -- Sulfur 23:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I can go through and edit all links from my present username (to my new one which I'm going to create soon). Although it would still be credited to this account, it would solve my issue and keep continuity of who actually added the message. There's less than fifty, so it'll only take five minutes for me to do. Mafeu 23:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Sulfur. Just a heads up: I clicked on the New Voyages fotonovel link you put on the "fan films" page and got the forum member login screen. Since I'm a member there, I logged in and tried again and got a thread of people complaining that the link to the fotonovel doesn't work. I checked the link and it says the fotonovel file has been deleted. I tried to see if it was posted some other place, but no such luck. I think maybe it's bit the dust. - Bridge 13:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it then. I was just moving it over from the Star Trek Fotonovels page where it was previously. Since it was fan fiction, it definitely didn't belong there, so... :) -- Sulfur 13:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for following me and fixing up actor pages that I put images into, though I may not always agree with how you choose to fix them (Gwynyth Walsh, for instance). An image changes an entire page. I find it quite difficult to fix the page accordingly.– Watching...listening... 23:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for formatting the copyrights of Susie Stillwells images. I've noticed and will do the same with future uploads. – Tom 20:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. It actually started by wanting to fix Bridge's delete notice, and I figured that I may as well may the copyrights look pretty at the same time :) -- Sulfur 20:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, again. What do you think about keeping these pictures here on MA? – Tom 21:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that any time a performer uploads stuff, we should find a way to keep it. :) -- Sulfur 21:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

"This should also stop the inane argument between OC and Hossrex too. I hope". Its so cute the way even the site administrators are unable to speak politely, and respectively. :) Oh well. If you don't think the wiki would be a better place without chasing people away... so be it.Hossrex 04:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on. He was even handed and didn't take sides, went at both the new person and the experienced person evenly with his criticism. You have the article kept. Take your pound of flesh and move on. I wasn't even planning on talking about this again after Sulfur told us to quit it, and I suggest you don't bring it up again. --OuroborosCobratalk 05:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have noted your, um, exasperation with me in history logs over several relatively minor issues of formatting. I apologize for the stress you have been caused by this, but I assure you it's not been in a deliberate effort to be contrary. I think I've just missed an FAQ somewhere that establishes these "same damned format as everywhere bloody else on the wiki". If you could point me in the direction of, well, directions, I'd be appreciative. I knew, in this case, that it wouldn't be appropriate to just link to [[1967]] because I assumed that would be pointing to a narrative year. I think I got the idea of [[Production timeline|1967]] from an existing usage, and it seemed reasonable. CzechOut☎ | ✍ 23:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Czech, sorry to jump in... but I will, anyway! :) For in-universe years, the [[1967]] is the way to go, and for production-related years, {{y|1967}} is the proper way (or {{m|March|1967}} or {{d|28|March|1967}} as appropriate). There's really no FAQ or guideline or policy on stuff like that; you basically just need to look at a bunch of existing articles sources and follow suit. The major stuff is on the help and policy pages, but documenting everything would end up a full-time job and produce too much documentation for anyone to reasonably follow. We already get criticized for having too many rules as it is. ;) -- Renegade54 01:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

So when it is [[Production timeline|yyyy]] appropriate? I didn't come up with that syntax on my own, and it did seem appropriate, as I was discussing a year in the context of production years. Or have I copied a sort of "dubious" syntax that really should never be used? CzechOut☎ | ✍ 09:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be used. If there's a date, link to the date's page. If you're talking about the production timeline specifically, go there. :) -- Sulfur 10:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, it's now (as best I can tell) never used in that context anymore. Cleanup is fun! -- Sulfur 11:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

hi, i just wanted to say it was good that you undid the adding of the Tal Shiar to the article that displays featured articles. :-) I was unsure if the article was to be featured and that someone just had forgotten to add the {{featured}}(or what the template is named). I was looking for the article where the articles that was up for voting was posted, so could you tell me what that article is named? the search-tool for MA still is not so good at searching for articles that is not about something in the trek-verse. :-) take care,-- Örlogskapten. Qapl'a! 20:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Sulfur. Just wanted to say thanks for handling the moves and editing for Urban and Pine's pages yesterday. Glad someone was on top of things. :) --From Andoria with Love 21:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If you'd done your homework, you would have discovered that I'm extremely familiar with image markup so there was no need to try and lecture me about things I already know!! Although what you told me is indeed important, try and be a bit more patient with other users next time - a good indication is to wait until sufficient time has passed (maybe 30 minutes?) after an image has been uploaded to see whether the user has added an image description or not (in which case, remind them about it or add it yourself). Impatient actions, like the recent message you left me, might drive away new users who may be less confident and/or more unsure of MA. (By the way, sorry about accidentally having left this message on your main user page - I initially thought it was you user talk page I was writing on!) --Defiant 22:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done my homework. No fear. It's more a case of, we've had such a spate of people just uploading images with no citations in the past. And anyhow, if you read the image upload page, it suggests simply adding them with the upload, in the descriptor field. That's what it's there for after all. :) -- Sulfur 22:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey :) I note your reversion back to the original, frameless form of the logo at Cardassian Union. I had changed it based upon the usage of logos at United Federation of Planets, thinking that to be the "standard" form. Your reversion made me curious about the general usage across various groups, and I note there's not really an established way of doing it.

Ya think there might be some utility to having it be all one way or the other? Or is it really just down to the fact that the frameless logos have transparent (or slate) backgrounds? Is there a desire to replace filmed instances of logos with user-designed logos? And, if so, are such homemade logos canonical? I'm not trying to detract from the work of the individuals who make these logos — they're fantastic and definitely spruce up an article — I'm just asking newbie questions. CzechOut☎ | ✍ 03:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It's down to the backgrounds mostly. If there's a nice transparent background, then it's best unframed. If not, it looks like crap unframed, ergo... thumb it. One of these days, everything'll be unframed, transparent, and look good. Until then... well, we putter along quietly. -- Sulfur 04:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summary on mummy: "expanding on refs for two of the apoc items... what's the other? don't just list 'em... expand on them". The first ref was for "Planet of the Dead". I have not finished writing the summary for that story yet. "The Mummies of Heitius VII" - haven't read it, but it's apparent there are mummies in it. "Time's Enemy" - the header at the top of the article says that they find "the crews' bodies mummified". Haven't read this either. Figured that I could note the refs and leave it to someone more knowledgeable to expand on 'em. Better to get the ball rolling and start the article than wait for the time (that may never come) when I can justify spending hours getting it perfect. Plus, I really needed some sleep. :P -- Connor Cabal 14:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why I expanded on them, and commented out the other — It's still there, just "hidden" away. I was interrupted in the middle before I could get to the times enemy bit though to check that out. Generally, when I'm doing lists like that, I put them onto the talk page and throw a pna-incomplete on the article itself. That way someone can see it, expand on them, and fill out the references, likely even better than I managed to in the 2-3 minutes I had available there. :) -- Sulfur 15:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not know the correct forum to bring this up on, so I am asking you. This user seems to have some sort of ActiveX stream link on his page. Does MA allow this? I know that a personal page is just that: personal, but I also know there are rules as to what one can put on. Suppose this links to some kind of virus or spyware or other such thing? I have not followed it for fear of that. But if this is indeed the case, it would not be a good thing to have MA associated with that sort of thing at all. I do not know how you want to treat with this.– Watching...listening... 19:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

On the page next to the thumb of the strange-looking vehichle is a small white box that says 11 - 15 - 2007. Left click on it. If you are using Firefox you get a prompt saying "You have chosen to open [string of numbers] which is a: application/octet stream. What should Firefox do with this file?" You get the option to open or save to disk. I do not know what Internet Explorer will do with it (probably just go ahead and open it, given its poor security). But what is it?– Watching...listening... 19:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the result of the mediawiki math module. It's an automagically generated file that's (if I'm not mistaken) actually a png file, but because it is named only a string of numbers by the software with no file extension, your web browser can't cope with it. -- Sulfur 19:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh. OK then. Good to know it is harmless. I take computer security very seriously and that thing had me very suspicious.– Watching...listening... 19:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If you hover over the image, you can see the url of the link down below, something like http://images.wikia.com/wikitex/images/3/32/326/20380163333e21dabc5a61b8d7ef0. That's the path to the wiki to TeX conversion module that takes code within <math> </nomath> tags and converts it to a graphic (png). If you left click on the image, you'll get the box asking what to do with the file (like Sulfur said, there's no extension, so Firefox isn't sure how to treat it). Click on the Open with button, then OK (not the Browse... button), and another window will open with some selections offered. Choose Firefox from that window, and you'll see a listing of the code generated by the png module. -- Renegade54 21:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Gorn, from Memory Alpha:Protection policy: The only cases in which an administrator may make changes to a temporarily-protected page are when he is adding a boilerplate message or other, similar notice. Thanks, Cid Highwind 14:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete that article? I was about to explain why I merged it, mainly the OK Corral article was just a few sentences and when it went to the Wikipedia link, it redirected to the gunfight article anyhow. As it took me a half hour to prepare and write the gunfight article, please dont just delete it. -FleetCaptain 23:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

When you "merged" the article, you threw away 3 years of history on the original article. If you're going to rename articles, it is always best to move them. It preserves the history. That's what I did. -- Sulfur 23:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As stated in my self revert, apologies as I saw you corrected that. You don't seem like the type that would unfairly delete an article which is why I came so qucikly here to discuss it. I also didnt know you could move article here. Neat. -FleetCaptain 23:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me on my toes while I learn the MA editing policies, Sulfur.

You indicated that "words ending in "s" don't need " 's" to pluralize... only " ' "." I think you meant "show possession" instead of "pluralize." Anyway, is there a separate rule for proper names, because in this same section you did not edit "Tim Russ's directorial debut" while you did correct "species' history?" – MemoryOmega 18:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to edit two pages in two places at once. That means that the note I left on WP was exactly what should've been here. Whoops. And I didn't do the Tim Russ one because... I didn't see it. :) -- Sulfur 23:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for already making the other correction. Now one more question on this subject: should the " 's" on an italicized word also be italicized itself? E.g., "the Enterprise's crew" versus "the Enterprise's crew." It seems strange to me that some might want to have just part of a word in italics. – MemoryOmega 08:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Logically, it should, but it shouldn't be linked, so we took the tact to alter that rule of formatting, because otherwise, it gets very ugly with the linking and formatting. The choice was... simplicity over annoyance. :) -- Sulfur 14:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the help getting acquainted with the policies, and it's been nice having a proofreader who works pro bono. --Icesyckel 20:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, you should never link to disambiguation pages, except to indicate that it's a disambiguation page. :) -- Sulfur 20:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Though I like the changes you made to my user page in light of the edits, I'd appreciate a "heads-up" when making changes to my user page. Not trying to pick a fight - just would appreciate you would send a "talk" first in the future. I agree with you, though, that "inter-species" is better than "interspecific" given that everyone knows the latter and are more likely to search for it. Thanks again, --Icesyckel 02:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I usually put a "sorry X" on the edit summary... I may have missed it. If so, my apologies. It was a long evening of drinx with the footie supporter boys tonight. :) -- Sulfur 03:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ain't no thang but a chicken wing, as they say. Curious: what are "fottie supporter boys?" --Icesyckel 03:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sulfur. Thought it was about time I said hi! Re your advice about 'Series' and 'Season', and my use of UK English rather than American English, I realised my error during my continuing update of Voyager's background information and have hopefully corrected myself as I've gone along. This should mean there aren't many 'series' for you to correct? The {{e tag removal from episode links you mention is, however, something I have not been doing. Once I've typed an entry, I go over the text and highlight any characters etc which I wish to link. I then press the internal link icon at the top of the notepad which adds _ to the start & finish of the link, but no 'e' appears automatically. Is this something which I should be adding manually?
Feel free to set me straight, and thanks for your comments. I was overwhelmed when I first found this website that there was so much information about Trek held in the minds of it's fans. It put my limited knowledge to shame. However, hopefully I've been able to add a little more, particularly to the history of ST:VOY. – The preceding unsigned comment was added byTeestee (talk • contribs).

Yeah, the episode links are a special template that we created here. it works as {{e|TITLE}} rather than [[TITLE]]. In this way, it formats it properly as per the wiki, and links to the proper article regardless. -- Sulfur 01:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see your reply about the {{e}} tag fix, or your pleas to use double rather than single quotation marks until after I'd finished "Endgame". Jes' that must've been frustrating. I apologise. (It keeps you on your toes though!) ;)
--Teestee 03:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a big deal. Let me clean a few other things up along the way too. One other thing to keep your eyes open for is links such as "Janeway". That doesn't actually go where you think that it goes. Try it. :)

Make sure that when you're linking to something, you check to see where it goes and ensure that the link is the correct and proper one. In that case, it should go to "Janeway" instead... -- Sulfur 03:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You reverted an edit of mine with the comment "rv. that's a copyvio from WP". But http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights says "The license Wikipedia uses grants free access to our content in the same sense as free software is licensed freely. This principle is known as copyleft. That is to say, Wikipedia content can be copied, modified, and redistributed so long as the new version grants the same freedoms to others and acknowledges the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article satisfies our author credit requirement). Wikipedia articles therefore will remain free forever and can be used by anybody subject to certain restrictions, most of which serve to ensure that freedom.". Please how does that clash with Memory Alpha's rules?

Unfortunately, the license under which they copyright/left/whichever stuff is the GFDL, whereas we use a non-regular CCL. I'm not a lawyer and don't understand all of the details myself, but the gist is that the licenses are incompatible with one another. -- Sulfur 14:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I see you deleted the Photon Torpedo redirect(to Photon torpedo) that was created, which is fine with me and I see the reasoning, but on the Redirect Help page it gives such a link as an example of an appropriate redirect. That might need to be changed in order to keep consistency.--31dot 13:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Previously, when you typed a search in the search field, you got a list of suggestions to make it quicker al la Mac OS X Spotlight. E.g. if you wanted to look up Robert Duncan MacNeill. As you typed, you got a list: Robert Beltran, Robert McNeill etc. You just clicked on McNeill. This made searching a lot easier. Now I have noticed it has been turned off. May I ask why? I may? OK. Why?– Watching...listening... 21:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Still appears to work for me. There's a discussion about it somewhere else. Not sure where. -- Sulfur 21:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to follow the rules and regs on indenting, but others are now changing the style yet again. See Talk:Story arcs, in particular the portion on Section 31. People are using the "every new comment is indented one step further" which I think is what you told me not to do. Did I get it wrong? Thanks. -FleetCaptain 23:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(Forgive me for jumping in onto another's talk page ;-) You are right. I fm the indents to meet the standard that every user has a certain indent. I have noticed a few incorrect ones recently. – Cleanse 00:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of anything like this. What are the guidelines and where can I find them? I assumed it worked like a nested discussion, where your comment would be indented with respect to the comment you're replying too. I guess that is incorrect? --Cinder 11:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You indent to the same level whenever you reply, so your reply to this comment would have two indents, any further replies from me would have three. This information can be found at Help:Talk pagess for future reference. :) -- Sulfur 11:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Germany holds no copyright on those images. These are recreations of pictures published or photographed from U.S. intelligence files and were the property of the War Department in 1945. Today, they are public as there is no agency which can lay copyright to medals of Nazi Germany. I researched this before I started this project as I was sure that someone would come along and say these were stolen from somewhere and/or can't be published on Memory Alpha. Not the case, I assure you. -FleetCaptain 04:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I posted a full explanation of where the images came from at Talk:Medals of Nazi Germany. I think we should keep all qeustions and postings in one place to avoid confusion. -FleetCaptain 05:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey - good work cleaning up my background info on the Ensigns of Command. I have to admit, however, I am not 100% certain about the accuracy of the comment. I have rewatched much of TNG and DS9 recently, and I do not recall seeing O'Brien play the cello again after that episode. I know for certain he does not in DS9, but I am not certain about TNG. Don't suppose you recall any subsequent occurences? --Icesyckel 21:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your notion about "my" picture on my user site. If this is against the rules I will certainly remove the image. But there is something I don´t understand: I saw images portraying other users on their sites and these pictures have nothing do with Star Trek at all. If I understood you correctly usage of a image is only allowed if it is already in use for a Trek-related purpose. Are these users in violation of regulations, too or did I misunderstand something? --Captain Wiesel 08:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Chances are these users are hosting these images off site, not on Memory Alpha. We have no rule against offsite images (as I did back a couple of months ago to show my Red Sox pride. The rule is against uploading personal image to Memory Alpha, no against hosting them offsite. --OuroborosCobratalk 09:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the information. --Captain Wiesel 09:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

It's me again. I think I got it now. Sorry about all the mistakes I made but I'm rather new at this. One last question: You changed my text from present to past. However, other articles are writte in present, too. Is there a special rule about this?--Captain Wiesel 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

MA:POV. In short, everything on MA should be written as if we were writing history books (for all intents and purposes). Except for episode summaries. Unfortunately, not everything is written that way. :) -- Sulfur 17:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for all the help and hope to talk to you again soon (without having made a mistake) :-) --Captain Wiesel 17:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help regarding the move, and I'll be sure to note that in the future. However, there was no need for your snarky comment in the history...

It had been a year since the other user suggested not taking the reused shot so literally, so I figured I'd help out and edit it since his comment probably didn't get noticed (since it's not a very noteworthy article such as Dominion War. Wangry 16:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what "snarky" means (see above), but I gather it's negative. You have seemed somewhat agitated since I've been hanging around MA, if you don't mind the observation. Is there something wrong in particular? It's not my goal to anger/hurt/insult you, but, especially for an admin, you seem have an especially abrasive approach to communicating with the other users. I was wondering if there's something outside MA that is troubling you? You really don't seem to enjoy yourself here, and that's not good for anybody is it? --Icesyckel 22:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

While being an apt observation, the good ol' boys club really hates to hear things like that. You might want to watch your back, lest you find a knife in it. – Hossrex 22:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

While attempting to make humour... that comment really does knife close to being a dig or personal attack. I don't really take offense... just warning you that some people might take offense at a comment like that.

In terms of being agitated? Not at all. It just bothers me (and always has) when people don't bother reading the information spoon fed to them in their welcome message. Stuff about etiquette, layout, and the way the wiki works. You know? I was always taught that you lurk for a while, learn how things work, and then start to join in, slowly but surely. Nowadays, a lot of people simply dive in and insist that things be done their way, when they have no history whatsoever. You can guess how well that goes over. -- Sulfur 22:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"You can guess how well that goes over". Exactly. Instead of simply helping people who do things differently from you... you... well... you know. And if pointing out that this is a good ol' boys club, and that if you're not careful you'll find a knife in your back "cuts a little too close"... maybe you should think about a few things. Eh? – Hossrex 00:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What the "good ol'boys club" really hates to hear is a diffuse and unspecific complaint like "well... you know... knife in the back... wink wink, nudge nudge, know what I mean?". At least, that's what I hate, because there's actually no such thing as a "good ol' boys club" of people completely agreeing on everything.

For the record, I think there's really nothing to complain about in regard to Sulfur's recent or past actions - but if you feel that this is the case, please at least be specific in your comments. Feel free to use any other appropriate discussion page, too, if it concerns not just Sulfur. -- Cid Highwind 00:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't suggest that there isn't a group of core constituents here who're less then receptive of, or helpful towards new editors. I see it every day. I'm adjusting to the quarkiness of this wiki, and I think I'm finding a place, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to agree with someone who comes here and points out a legitimate problem. I believe that no one does it on purpose, but people here can be quite difficult on new users. Expecting people to memorize verbatim the specifics of policy, and random discussions on the various forums is just ridiculous, yet it happens all the time. "We've discussed that to death in random forum X". Okay. Good for you. You understand that the BEST part of the wiki structure is that it isn't just three people creating a website, right? You realize that the best part of a wiki is that is supported by tens, hundreds, or even thousands of different users. Correct? Yet there is an expectation here (more then occasionally), that before you can help with contributions, you should be an expert in Memory Alpha policy. It isn't so much that these posts get reverted, as it is the tone, and disrespect leveled at these new users *AS* their hard work is being reverted. You can *NOT* say this doesn't happen. *THIS* is what I mean by the "good ol' boys club". Its real. – Hossrex 00:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, look. I apologize for starting this thread entirely. It was not my goal to start a "hey - lets gangup on Sulfur" forum. Sulf, I noticed that, from some of your comments yu've made to me and others, you seemed a little "miffed" about something. I wasn't offended, am not offended, and I most certainly did not mean to personally attack you or anyone, so I hope your reply was directed at Hossrex.

If anything, I was hoping you'd tell me what had you so irritated (which you did) that way, if I was contributing to your funk in any way, I could try to be less of a pain. I do think you occasionally take a "RTFM" attitude (I have been, btw, or I wouldn't know what that acronym means), which isn't a great way to make noobs feel welcome, but whatever. I appreciate blunt honesty and sarcasm, to a point. It's better than dishonest handholding for certain, but some of us are still new and, though we are willing to RTFM, could use a little time to do it. So we are straight - I don't agree with anything said about a "good old boys club" or knives. I feel like, for the most part, everyone's pretty cool here. If I didn't, then I would move on. There are always other ways to kill time on the net, and it's certainly easier to not contribute than to contribute. --Icesyckel 01:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I know about the preview button, I was just having a moment. I don't know if I just forgot about it (it's been a while since I editted here or on Wikipedia, or it just didn't click in to use it... :p

I must be having a bad night because half-way through, right before you posted, it clicked in again that I was putting all those links on the wrong page. They're there for convenience (for others, I suppose, but me to) and I did something similar on Wikipedia. It was a little more extensive and a Wiki-admin removed it. Will I face a similar problem here? I could look it up, but I don't exactly remember the reason they cited. Advocatus 03:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Your user page is your user page, and you can do whatever you want with it... within reason. Generally, a lot of people use their user pages to keep track of some of the articles they've created (I gave up on that a long time ago), or useful links. If your page is similar, all the power to you. :) -- Sulfur 03:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)